Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantive behavior: paid essays expose only the free portion and the text marks where it stops, frontmatter carries title/date/series/canonical URL and a claim-ledger link, and the tool does not certify claim truth. That is real context beyond the structured hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and output format, then metadata and caveats. The closing 'these tools retrieve...' sentence is slightly generic but earns its place by scoping expectations for citation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden well: markdown body, frontmatter fields, claim-ledger link, and truncation behavior for paid essays. Nothing needed to call or interpret the result is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the slug format and provenance are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing new about the parameter (the 'get it from search' hint duplicates the schema text), so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the full public text of one Durability Curve essay as markdown') and its output format, which cleanly separates it from get_claim_ledger and search. An agent can identify the tool's job without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description points to 'search' as the way to obtain the slug and notes that these tools only retrieve public material, which implies usage. However, it never states when to choose this tool over get_claim_ledger, nor any preconditions beyond obtaining a slug.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.